Materials of an International Seminar
Civil society and social development

Boris I. KRASNOV
TODAY'S UNDERSTANDING OF CIVIL SOCIETY, INTERACTION WITH THE STATE

Debate as to the sum and substance of civil society has been going on for
a long time now. Ascending to the political and juridical thought of ancient
times, the idea of civil society demonstrates permanent movement, change and
development. All celebrated philosophers and sociologists have always touched
upon this pressing issue some way or other. The question regarding the interrelationship
between civil society and the state is rather difficult to answer.
Montesquieu wrote about civil society as a society of antagonism between people
towards one another, thereby turning into the state - a body of violence to
prevent enmity between citizens. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu does not
identify civil society with the state differentiating between civil and political
laws. Rousseau views civil society as its transformation into the state, with
republican government being a sine qua non, through a social contract. Its
government can be overthrown any time at the request of civil society.
According to Hegel, civil society and the state being independent, they form
an identity. Civil society and a family are inalienable as regards the existence
of the state. At the same time, he does not deny contradiction between civil
society and the state.
Present-day followers dealing with the problems of civil society amply employ
the theoretical legacy of the celebrated philosophers while trying to avoid
the extremity of their views and adapt their position to the realia of today.
However, theoretical researches conducted by the scientists of the past continue
to be used as a methodological basis for the civil society theory.
For example, Aristotle has voiced the idea that it is property owners who
must form the basis of civil society. The majority of celebrated philosophers
considered 'comprehensive' democracy (including self-government) as one of
the main features of civil society. They viewed fair laws as the main form
of relationship between the state and civil society. Of special interest are
Marx's ideas on the identity of civil society and the state. There can be
three variants of this kind of identity:
1) civil society and the state as two hostile armies;
2) civil society and the state as two friendly armies;
3) as a result of confrontation one of the armies emerges victorious and dissolves
the other army.
Modern Russian history has seen all three such alternatives: the third variant
is Stalin's dictatorship when civil society was dissolved and hardly managed
to survive; the second variant is something we are striving for; while today's
situation as regards relationships between the state and civil society is
very close to the first alternative.
At present, it becomes all too obvious that the progress of mankind has always
depended on the combination of the political and non-political in it. A true
civil society is a community boasting optimal relationships between all spheres
of social life, i.e. a community where interrelationship and interaction between
the economic, political, social and religious spheres ensure progress of human
society and its advance towards higher forms of social organisation.
At present, the optimal (to ensure progress) combination of the political
and non-political in society has not been attained so far. The non-political
sphere is rather independent and requires further research and analysis. Let
us suggest the following definition of civil society.
Civil society is a non-political form of human community directly dependent
upon and closely linked with political power, though immune from direct interference
of the latter by appropriate norms and laws.
The original idea underlying the civil society concept suggests the transformation
of collectivity organised in accordance with the law of nature regarding coexistence
of people in society and the development of man descended from the world of
enmity and uncontrolled freedom into a citizen of this society. Civilised
and humanised, this kind of society becomes capable of shaping the personality
of a new-type citizen who, in his turn, creates a new civil society. The force
that creates and ties these two phenomena (collective and individuum) is the
power of the state, which has undergone a transformation into a new modern-type
power.
Thus, civil society is shaped by the collective, individuum and state.
The development of civil society is a civilised process. In the course of
this process, both citizens and civil relationships between the members of
society, as well as society proper as a collective form of citizenship, the
state and relations between the state, individuum and society are civilised.
A required condition for this sort of development is equilibrium, equal development
and mutual equality as regards rights, freedoms and responsibilities of all
the three components of civil society, namely those of man, society and the
state, individual character of personality and collective life and coexistence
of people organised into society. The prevalence of one of the three components
leads to the disintegration of civil society.
Civil society promotes free development of associations, mass movements, parties
and other social groups with different views, beliefs and principles. It seeks
decentralisation of the state by vesting some of its powers in self-government
bodies, ensures cooperation between the majority and minority by coordinating
their positions through negotiations and avoiding open conflicts.
Machinery for cooperation between civil society and the state
The development of civil society both as a human value, and the value of the
whole of human civilisation is not over yet. It concerns the notion of civil
society and its definition, its separation and isolation from the political
and state spheres, as well as its functions, parameters and characteristics.
We can state that the process is all the more incomplete as regards the harmonisation
of relations between civil society and the state. From the theoretical point
of view, of top priority is the kind of relationship ensuring close and mutually
beneficial cooperation between the two spheres. In practice, however, we often
witness interference in the civil sphere on the part of the political sphere.
History of practically all modern countries has seen examples of intolerable
interference of political power in civil society affairs. This sort of interference
usually takes place under a specious pretext - for example to streamline relations
between some elements of civil society or other.
In this country today, the elements of civil society have come to enjoy more
sovereignty and civil rights. Underway is the privatisation of the means of
production. However, the above processes are often delayed and sometimes interrupted
through direct political interference. In sum, the way towards agreement between
political power and civil society is blocked by confrontation.
Present-day public opinion increasingly comes to believe that one of the growing
trends as regards social progress is the development of human society as a
single whole free of enmity and confrontation between its components. In this
connexion, one may say that the convergence theory is currently enjoying a
renaissance. The present situation confirms the above trend, which certainly
has a positive effect on the development of civil society and its relations
with political power.
Civil society being a human value, it is all too natural to assume that it
inherits all features inherent in mankind. At the same time, civil society
often develops and has to exist and build its relations with political power
in different environments. As a result, civil society inevitably features
some peculiar characteristics depending both on some historical stages of
development and the current stage of social development of a given country.
Civil society is also influenced by the country's customs and traditions,
prevailing forms of political power and government, etc.
In our view, when speaking about universal features of civil society one must
be aware of the fact that they may vary from country to country (or region).
What are the main features of civil society? First and foremost, it is supposed
to have free owners of the means of production. On the face of it, it sounds
trivial enough: there can be no society without owners of the means of production
and their freedom can be not but guaranteed.
However, there are not two owners alike. The first question that matters is
what one owns as well as what one's rights are as to this property. Secondly,
the above feature of civil society is solely wrapped around the word 'free'
whose clear understanding requires in-depth analysis:
* Who or what is the owner free from?
* What is the owner really free to do?
* How free is the owner?
Answers to these questions make it possible to arrive at an understanding
as to the nature of relationships between the association of owners objectively
existing in the non-political sphere (they are manufacturers) and political
power.
So, what must the owner be free from in order to become a subject of civil
society? The answer offered by the philosophers of the past was clear-cut
enough - free from dictatorial rule, from interference in the production process
on the part of the state and political power. Besides most complicated relations
between the owner and non-owner, with the latter being a participant in the
production process, the owner of the means of production has always been involved
in a 'war of attrition' (with varying degrees of success) with the state in
order to prevent or at least limit the influence of the political sphere on
economy. It would be in the best interest of society and for the sake of its
steady progressive development if this kind of confrontation ended in a draw,
with the economic and political spheres being equally able to influence each
other. The XX century has graphically illustrated that excessive freedom granted
to the owner of the means of production leads to anarchy, arbitrariness in
economy and crises like those we witnessed in 1929-33 and in the mid-1970s.
The dominance of the political sphere, however, leads to even graver crises
like World War I and II. That is the reason why industrialised capitalist
countries are so careful about keeping the economic and political spheres
in equilibrium.
As to our country, there is a peculiar situation here. The scientist A. Migranyan
describes it in the following way: "With the economic, social and cultural
spheres being underdeveloped, the transition to a new system begins with respective
changes in the superstructure and the new state turns out to be practically
the only force tasked with radical reforms and the restructuring of the old
economic system, social and cultural life of society. As a result, there is
an inversion of the state's and civil society's functions. Society - namely
civil society - turns out to be unable to independently formulate and raise
questions requiring immediate and undivided attention, while the state is
called upon to perform both its own functions and those of civil society.
Thus, the state, as it were, 'absorbs' society." (3) As regards the owner-state
link we are dealing with, this kind of 'absorption' here is absolute and all-embracing.
Indeed, the private/individual owner of the means of production was exterminated,
while private collective ownership - in the form of cooperative socialism,
which is quite natural to Russia (rural commune) - has never really taken
root. Joint state/capitalist ownership, most expedient for the transition
period according to V. Lenin, failed too.
What remained for Russia to do? The means of production were totally expropriated
by the state. The political leadership believed that the assumption of power
and expropriation of the means of production would automatically turn all
people into joint social owners. But is that possible? In the course of time,
it has become evident that the answer is negative.
However, the means of production must have an owner. It is the state that
came to own them - solely and exclusively, which excluded any form of joint
ownership. The state was believed to belong to the nation. One could gather
that property was public, too. In actual fact, however, the state's monopolistic
ownership of the means of production resulted in the extermination of the
private (individual or collective) owner. Being extremely underdeveloped in
itself, Russian civil society was deprived of its economic basis.
In shaping civil society in Russia, the main problem to tackle lies in establishing
the institution of private - both collective and individual - owners of the
means of production as fast as possible. Well-organised and developed, it
is this institution drawing on the positive experience of other countries
and progressive traditions of its own that will become capable of achieving
what the leading industrialised nations achieved long ago - namely the parity
with political power. This can be viewed as a first step to overcome the current
crisis.
Another feature I would like to dwell on in greater detail pertains to democracy,
i.e. how developed and diversified this phenomenon is in a given society.
Obvious enough, this feature is far from being something original. It is all
the more so, if it is our understanding that civil society is a democratic
society as opposed to absolute power or dictatorship of a person or a social
group (class).
On the other hand, original here is the analysis of notions used to characterise
the feature. Let us start with the notion of 'democracy'.
First and foremost, it is necessary to leave behind the traditional view of
democracy as a required attribute of the political sphere alone. This view
is all too evident when

?????A?????

Russia over the economic and other spheres. No doubt, this determines the
way the subject of power is introduced in the definition of democracy. Sometimes,
people are recognised as the source of power. Otherwise, people are viewed
"in the capacity of the source of power". In other instances, the
source of power is not mentioned at all. One may guess that in this case the
source of power will imply "the forms of the people's sovereignty set
by the laws of freedom and equality". In all the above types, the priority
of the political sphere over all other fields of social life is evident enough.
Thus, the current understanding of democracy as a form of political organisation
where the system of state bodies to a certain extent provides for the participation
of the populace in government is based on the wrong methodological premise.
It suggests that all social problems can only be solved politically, authoritatively
and administratively. Besides, such notions as the people, the populace, working
people, etc. acting as the subject of power sound rather vague.
In our opinion, in order to surmount this traditional and methodologically
wrong approach to democracy, one must further elaborate on the notion of democracy
and offer clear-cut definitions as regards the subjects of power directly
involved in the 'operation' of democracy.
Today, one must consider democracy not so much a sort of society's political
structure as a major means of organising, streamlining and regulating relations
between all elements of the social structure, mainly, as regards their economic
and social interests. There seems to be nothing out of the ordinary about
this approach: economic interests have always formulated policy, while the
political sphere has always served the economic interests of those who express
them. Society has been developing, climbing the ladder of social progress
and improving. At the same time, mankind's progress takes a heavy toll of
human life as a result of colonialism, regional and world wars, artificially
triggered famine, epidemics and unemployment and other 'charms' of civilisation.
The main reason why progress inevitably takes its toll has nothing to do with
the primacy of the political sphere over the economic sphere and vice versa.
The main reason lies in the priority of one element or a small group of elements
over the rest of components. It is on the basis of this premise that progressive
public opinion has put forward a thesis as to the class nature of any democracy.
The idea of the state as a weapon of class violence prompted many a generation
of Marx's followers to strictly abide by at least two long-standing, if wrong,
stereotypes.
a) as to the almightiness of the state as an institute of violent creation
of any new society;
b) as to identity in principle between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois dictatorship.
The theoretical conclusion, which used to determine the policy pursued by
the Bolsheviks for many years that followed, is like this: the dictatorship
of the proletariat makes the existence of any element of bourgeois democracy
unnecessary. And this was actually put into practice.
So, what happened? In establishing a new sort of state and by assigning it
a greater role to play in the life of society, we quite forgot about an urgent
need for democratisation, a need to protect the interests of other classes
along with those of the revolutionary class, a need to build civil society,
etc. We did not even notice that absolutely different processes were running
in other nations across the globe - processes aimed at building civil society
as a powerful counterbalance to the state that forces the latter to protect
and advance the interests of all strata.
There is another thing worth mentioning when speaking about democracy as one
of the features of civil society. At any level, democracy suggests the presence,
on the one hand, of those who guide and, on the other hand, of those who are
guided. The latter are representatives of the non-political sphere, namely
owners in the field of production. The former are professional politicians
acting on a permanent basis. The development level of civil society directly
depends on the interrelation between these inalienable elements of democracy.
One may assume that civil society has been created if there is at least equality
between the guiding ones and the guided ones. Ideally, for civil society to
reach a higher development level, there must be dominance (though not absolute)
of those who are guided over the professionally trained guiding ones. It is
this kind of dominance that allows existing civil society, according to K.
Marx, to free itself from ubiquitous and omnipresent military, bureaucratic,
religious and judicial fetters. (5)
Regarding free owners of the means of production and diversified democracy
as one of the features of civil society, one cannot but dwell on the question
pertaining to the machinery ensuring cooperation between civil society and
the political structures. What ties must exist between them in order to form
a long-standing and capable entity? In our opinion, it is law that can be
used as the afore-mentioned machinery to unite the political and non-political
spheres of society.
With this in mind, the rule of law must be regarded as the most capable and
conspicuous feature of civil society.
As regards relationships between the political and non-political spheres in
this country, the truth is that both in the past 70 years and beyond, there
used to exist absolute dominance of the political sphere over other social
fields. This idea has long become inherent in our social thinking. It has
become a sort of social ideology presenting the state as a top-priority interest
and trying to find scientific grounds for the priority of the interests of
the state over those of the citizen, for the primacy of social and economic
rights over civil rights, for making the citizen subordinate to the state,
for identifying society and the state, etc.
Once put into practice, this way of thinking led to the absolute primacy of
the state over all other fields of social life. Civil society was worst affected
when the state could regulate at will relations between the guiding ones and
the guided ones. There can be no equality within a state-run democracy. It
is the enormous class of bureaucrats that is most interested in the primacy
of the state. They realise that their role will immediately diminish as soon
as citizens are able to independently take decisions about their private matters.
This is the very reason why the bureaucratic command system does its best
to ensure dominance of professional politicos - of those who guide over those
who are guided.
However, change is inevitable. In the course of sweeping reform, we began
moving towards civil society. The first steps towards establishing the rule
of law graphically illustrate the trend. (6) Further and more drastic steps
will help the guided ones achieve full equality with the guiding ones.